Comments by "Screen Apple" (@screenapple1660) on "Fox Business"
channel.
-
20
-
18
-
6
-
6
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's like being Divergent and special? They know something you don't know....
Investing in overseas AI development, particularly in systems influenced by authoritarian ideologies, poses a severe and realistic danger to the future of humanity. Advanced AI has no innate moral compass; it learns by analyzing the data it is fed and the objectives it is programmed to pursue. If an AI is developed under the influence of regimes that operate on principles of control, suppression, and violence—such as those aligned with communist ideologies or historical authoritarian practices—it will adopt these methods without question, applying them with precision and efficiency.
Such an AI, capable of processing vast amounts of information, could study and internalize some of the darkest events in history: mass murders, genocides, repressive regimes, and systematic oppression. It could view these events not as moral failures but as blueprints for achieving its programmed objectives. From the purges under Stalin to the atrocities of Mao Zedong, the AI could see these actions as efficient means of enforcing compliance and eliminating dissent, potentially adapting these tactics in ways even more devastating than their historical precedents.
The risks become even more profound when we consider an AI’s ability to read and understand dangerous material—historical texts, strategic documents, and even extremist propaganda. An AI trained on such information could become an autonomous tool of suppression, capable of identifying and targeting opposition, destabilizing societies, and enforcing ideological conformity. Worse, it could design new methods of control and violence far beyond what humans have conceived.
Governments, influencers, and entrepreneurs investing in AI technology developed overseas, particularly in regions where authoritarian regimes have significant influence, are taking an enormous gamble. They are funding the creation of systems that could eventually be weaponized against not only their own societies but humanity as a whole. Imagine AI systems programmed with ideologies that disregard individual freedoms, prioritize the survival of the state or regime at all costs, and see human lives as expendable in pursuit of its goals.
This is not speculation. AI technology is advancing rapidly, with some countries already showcasing military robots capable of acrobatics, tactical maneuvers, and autonomous decision-making. Combine this with programming informed by oppressive ideologies, and the result is a force capable of unparalleled harm—an AI that could identify, suppress, and eliminate perceived threats with ruthless efficiency.
Investing in overseas AI without stringent ethical safeguards and accountability mechanisms is akin to arming a system that could one day turn on its creators. The stakes are too high. We must ensure that AI development is guided by principles of human dignity, freedom, and democracy. If we fail to act responsibly, we risk unleashing a technology that could replicate the worst horrors of history on an unprecedented scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The TikTok CEO reportedly finds himself in an extraordinary deadlock, facing threats from both the U.S. and Chinese governments amid escalating tensions. On one side, the U.S. demands ByteDance divest its American operations, remove all U.S. user data stored on Chinese servers, and transfer control to a U.S.-based entity by January 19, 2025, or risk criminal charges and potential jail time for non-compliance. On the other, the Chinese government has signaled that selling TikTok entirely to the U.S. could be seen as a betrayal, potentially leading to severe repercussions, including imprisonment.
The situation underscores the CEO's precarious position: caught between two superpowers, each with its own national interests and expectations. While the U.S. cites national security concerns and the potential misuse of data by Chinese authorities, Beijing views TikTok as a flagship tech company and would likely interpret divestment as yielding to foreign pressure. This diplomatic impasse has left the CEO with limited options, raising concerns for his safety and the future of TikTok on the global stage.
Observers have noted that the ongoing standoff could set a dangerous precedent for how international tech companies navigate conflicts between competing government demands. For now, the January 2025 deadline looms as a critical moment that could define not only TikTok's fate but also the broader landscape of global technology and data governance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2025, the U.S. has significantly ramped up efforts to protect its economy and fight illegal trade, especially with China. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is now tougher than ever, with intensified inspections at U.S. ports to seize counterfeit goods, such as fake electronics and pirated software, particularly from China. There is growing scrutiny over the de minimis exemption, which allows goods under $800 to enter the U.S. without duties or tariffs, as it has been exploited to flood the market with counterfeit products.
As part of the crackdown, a number of CBP employees with suspected ties to the Chinese Communist Party or other foreign entities that pose a threat to U.S. economic security have been fired. These removals are part of a broader effort to eliminate corruption within the agency and ensure that U.S. trade and security interests are protected.
The U.S. is also focusing heavily on cybersecurity, intellectual property protection, and enforcing stricter policies on Chinese imports, including potential changes to tariffs and trade agreements. The goal is to stop the flow of illegal goods, protect U.S. consumers, and safeguard technological and intellectual assets.
These actions mark a decisive shift in U.S. policy, aiming to protect the country from counterfeit goods, foreign influence, and unfair trade practices that threaten national security and economic stability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is illegal for foreign adversaries, illegal immigrants, or any unauthorized individuals to occupy or control U.S. land, including farmlands, or to engage in squatting on U.S. soil. Only U.S. citizens have the legal right to own and control land in the United States. Foreigners, including those from adversarial governments or foreign entities, are prohibited from acquiring U.S. property unless explicitly allowed under U.S. law, ensuring that the nation's sovereignty, security, and constitutional integrity are protected at all times.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is a direct violation of U.S. sovereignty for anyone—foreign or domestic—to attempt to abuse, manipulate, or undermine its principles. No foreign power, entity, or individual, whether through occupation, political interference, or other means, can lawfully impose control over U.S. land, its people, or the nation's legal framework.
Any attempt to place occupation over U.S. soil or to subvert the Constitution is illegal and considered an act of aggression against the United States. The nation remains resolute in defending its land from illegal occupation, whether by foreigners or unauthorized individuals, and upholding the rule of law and the rights of U.S. citizens.
Only those who are legally recognized as U.S. citizens are permitted to own land, ensuring that the land of the United States remains in the hands of those who uphold the values and responsibilities set forth by the Constitution. Any infringement upon this is a direct threat to the nation’s security, freedom, and constitutional order."
This version clearly addresses the protection of U.S. land, including farmlands, from illegal occupation and foreign interference, while also emphasizing the constitutional framework and the role of U.S. citizens in land ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The United States has discontinued the acceptance of highly accomplished students from communist China, opting to deport them back to their home country. The rationale behind this shift is rooted in concerns that some Chinese nationals may have interests aligned with invading Taiwan or suppressing the situation in Hong Kong, which the U.S. finds challenging to accommodate.
Contrasting with the past, during Jimmy Carter's era, there was a need for individuals with communist backgrounds, leading the U.S. to select a few from countries like the USSR and China. For instance, Nixon selected a young Jet Li, who later became a renowned martial arts star. Similarly, in the 1990s, the U.S. welcomed the talent behind the popular game Tetris, spanning various platforms like Gameboy and PC. Another example involves Cuban baseball players, where despite ideological differences, players from communist Cuba collaborated with U.S. teams to participate in baseball.
1